"If you were guilted into having sex, and you said yes because "you felt you had to", you were not raped." (np.reddit.com)
112 ups - 68 downs = 44 votes
173 comments submitted at 18:31:55 on Apr 4, 2014 by WelcomeToNightVale
"If you were guilted into having sex, and you said yes because "you felt you had to", you were not raped." (np.reddit.com)
112 ups - 68 downs = 44 votes
173 comments submitted at 18:31:55 on Apr 4, 2014 by WelcomeToNightVale
> What I said is not an example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
I meant you could call my argument one.
>When what happened was that you claimed a persons opinion can be discredited by highlighting moral faults in that person.
And it can.
>And I gave the counter example, highlight hypothetical situations where a person without moral faults can give a crappy opinion.
No. You made up an entirely new example where the morals were irrelevant, rather than sticking with the example provided to you and explaining why it was wrong. I believe, if I were to use fallacies like you, that what you did is called setting up a strawman.
Do not change the argument from "is it wrong to dismiss the opinion of a child rapist when he tries to defend his actions" to "is it wrong to dismiss the opinions of a child rapist when he says an amusement park is funny". In one of these situations, him being a child rapist is entirely relevant, on the other, it is not.
> Both my philosophy teacher and my debate teacher mentioned fallacies fairly often.
Yes. Thought exercises and black and white situations where you want to prove a point. I doubt either of your teachers would argue against dismissing a Klan member's opinion on race because he is Klan member.
As for my hypothethical scenario, I don't reccall you ever addressing my original question directly, though I admit I may have missed the answer.
>is it wrong to dismiss the opinion of a child rapist when he tries to defend his actions
Yes. The reason this is wrong is because you are labeling him a child molester before he even gets a chance to defend his actions.
And let's say he's already been convicted of child rape and has been accused of it again. It's still wrong because from case to case he is entitled to defend his actions and be given the benefit of the doubt. That's the american policy of innocent until proven guilty.
And to address your previous example about Hitler. This is 2014 where Hitler has already been confirmed to committing crimes against humanity. So it's pretty obvious he's lying knowing what we know now.
>I doubt either of your teachers would argue against dismissing a Klan member's opinion on race because he is Klan member.
They absolutely would. They would tell you to look solely at faults in his argument.
>As for my hypothethical scenario, I don't reccall you ever addressing my original question directly, though I admit I may have missed the answer.
Yea I'm telling you to rewrite it to save confusion. Which you keep not doing.
> And let's say he's already been convicted of child rape and has been accused of it again. It's still wrong because from case to case he is entitled to defend his actions and be given the benefit of the doubt. That's the american policy of innocent until proven guilty.
Ah, fine, you go and have your kids play with him, then.
>This is 2014 where Hitler has already been confirmed to committing crimes against humanity
Oh, but he could totes have changed. Innocent until proven wrong. That is the american way, remember?
>They absolutely would. They would tell you to look solely at faults in his argument.
Then I am afraid your teachers were pretty stupid, and you are doing a terrible thing by following their footsteps.
I suppose that is all that there is to be said, we got to that point of the conversation where we differ in fundamental levels.